Weal -V- Bathurst City Council & Ors [1999] NSWLEC 132

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales CITATION: Weal -V- Bathurst City Council & Ors [1999] NSWLEC 132

PARTIES APPLICANT: W.J. Weal

RESPONDENTS: Bathurst City Council and Ors

NUMBER: 40179 of 1998

CORAM: Bignold J

KEY ISSUES: Judicial Review :- Validity of development consent on "Wednesbury" principles-whether Council properly considered the noise impact of the approved development.

LEGISLATION CITED: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

DATES OF HEARING: 05/18/1999; 05/19/1999; 05/20/1999; 06/02/1999

DATE OF JUDGMENT DELIVERY: 06/11/1999

APPLICANT: Mr T. Hale, Barrister SOLICITORS: Writer Ryan Boesen

FIRST RESPONDENT: Mr W.R. Davison SC LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: SOLICITORS: McIntosh McPhillamy

SECOND RESPONDENT: Mr D.R. Parry, Barrister SOLICITORS: Houston Dearn O'Connor

JUDGMENT: TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. INTRODUCTION 1-10 B. PRIMARY FACTS RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENT CONSENT 11-73 (i) Background to development application 12 (ii) The making of the development application 13-17 (iii) The Council's processing of the development application 18-60 (iv) The Council's determination of the development application 61-63 (v) The grant of the development consent 64-68 (vi) Facts subsequent to the grant of the development consent 69-73 C. DID THE COUNCIL FAIL TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION RELEVANT MATTERS? 74-139 D. DID THE COUNCIL TAKE INTO ACCOUNT IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS? 140-148 E. WAS THE COUNCIL'S DETERMINATION UNREASONABLE IN THE " WEDNESBURY " SENSE? 149-168 F. WAS THE COUNCIL GUILTY OF PARTIALITY OR BIAS? 169-173 G. WAS THE DELEGATION TO THE COUNCIL'S DIRECTOR UNAUTHORISED 174-182 H. DID THE COUNCIL'S RESOLUTION FETTER THEDISCRETION VESTED IN THE COUNCIL'S DIRECTOR? 183-188 I. DOES THE DEVELOPMENT CONSENT LACK THE REQUISITE CERTAINTY AND FINALITY? 189-195 J. CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS 196-197 IN THE LAND AND Matter No. 40179 of 1998 ENVIRONMENT COURT OF Coram: Bignold J. NEW SOUTH WALES 11 June 1999